IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2106.13059.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Robust Decisions for Heterogeneous Agents via Certainty Equivalents

Author

Listed:
  • Anne G. Balter
  • Nikolaus Schweizer

Abstract

We study the problem of a planner who resolves risk-return trade-offs - like financial investment decisions - on behalf of a collective of agents with heterogeneous risk preferences. The planner's objective is a two-stage utility functional where an outer utility function is applied to the distribution of the agents' certainty equivalents from a given decision. Assuming lognormal risks and heterogeneous power utility preferences for the agents, we characterize optimal behavior in a setting where the planner can let each agent choose between different options from a fixed menu of possible decisions, leading to a grouping of the agents by risk preferences. These optimal decision menus are derived first for the case where the planner knows the distribution of preferences exactly and then for a case where he faces uncertainty about this distribution, only having access to upper and lower bounds on agents' relative risk aversion. Finally, we provide tight bounds on the welfare loss from offering a finite menu of choices rather than fully personalized decisions.

Suggested Citation

  • Anne G. Balter & Nikolaus Schweizer, 2021. "Robust Decisions for Heterogeneous Agents via Certainty Equivalents," Papers 2106.13059, arXiv.org.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2106.13059
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2106.13059
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Magnus Dahlquist & Ofer Setty & Roine Vestman, 2018. "On the Asset Allocation of a Default Pension Fund," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 73(4), pages 1893-1936, August.
    2. Peter Klibanoff & Massimo Marinacci & Sujoy Mukerji, 2005. "A Smooth Model of Decision Making under Ambiguity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 73(6), pages 1849-1892, November.
    3. David E. Bell, 1982. "Regret in Decision Making under Uncertainty," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 30(5), pages 961-981, October.
    4. Balter, Anne G. & Mahayni, Antje & Schweizer, Nikolaus, 2021. "Time-consistency of optimal investment under smooth ambiguity," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 293(2), pages 643-657.
    5. R. H. Strotz, 1955. "Myopia and Inconsistency in Dynamic Utility Maximization," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 23(3), pages 165-180.
    6. Simon, Leo K & Zame, William R, 1990. "Discontinuous Games and Endogenous Sharing Rules," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 58(4), pages 861-872, July.
    7. Merton, Robert C., 1971. "Optimum consumption and portfolio rules in a continuous-time model," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 373-413, December.
    8. Francesco D’Acunto & Nagpurnanand Prabhala & Alberto G Rossi, 2019. "The Promises and Pitfalls of Robo-Advising," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 32(5), pages 1983-2020.
    9. Benjamin Armbruster & Erick Delage, 2015. "Decision Making Under Uncertainty When Preference Information Is Incomplete," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(1), pages 111-128, January.
    10. Loomes, Graham & Sugden, Robert, 1982. "Regret Theory: An Alternative Theory of Rational Choice under Uncertainty," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 92(368), pages 805-824, December.
    11. Calvet, Laurent E. & Campbell, John Y & Gomes, Francisco & Sodini, Paolo, 2021. "The Cross-Section of Household Preferences," CEPR Discussion Papers 16105, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    12. Bjarne Astrup Jensen & Jørgen Aase Nielsen, 2016. "How suboptimal are linear sharing rules?," Annals of Finance, Springer, vol. 12(2), pages 221-243, May.
    13. Henrik Cronqvist & Richard H. Thaler, 2004. "Design Choices in Privatized Social-Security Systems: Learning from the Swedish Experience," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(2), pages 424-428, May.
    14. Alserda, Gosse A.G. & Dellaert, Benedict G.C. & Swinkels, Laurens & van der Lecq, Fieke S.G., 2019. "Individual pension risk preference elicitation and collective asset allocation with heterogeneity," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 206-225.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sascha Desmettre & Mogens Steffensen, 2023. "Equilibrium investment with random risk aversion," Mathematical Finance, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(3), pages 946-975, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Balter, Anne G. & Schweizer, Nikolaus, 2024. "Robust decisions for heterogeneous agents via certainty equivalents," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 317(1), pages 171-184.
    2. Tommi Ekholm & Erin Baker, 2022. "Multiple Beliefs, Dominance and Dynamic Consistency," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(1), pages 529-540, January.
    3. Sautua, Santiago I., 2017. "Does uncertainty cause inertia in decision making? An experimental study of the role of regret aversion and indecisiveness," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 1-14.
    4. Corina Birghila & Tim J. Boonen & Mario Ghossoub, 2023. "Optimal insurance under maxmin expected utility," Finance and Stochastics, Springer, vol. 27(2), pages 467-501, April.
    5. Jonathan W. Leland & Mark Schneider, 2016. "Salience, Framing, and Decisions under Risk, Uncertainty, and Time," Working Papers 16-08, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    6. Dirk Bergemann & Karl Schlag, 2012. "Robust Monopoly Pricing," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Robust Mechanism Design The Role of Private Information and Higher Order Beliefs, chapter 13, pages 417-441, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    7. Özalp Özer & Yanchong Zheng, 2016. "Markdown or Everyday Low Price? The Role of Behavioral Motives," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(2), pages 326-346, February.
    8. Belianin, A., 2017. "Face to Face to Human Being: Achievements and Challenges of Behavioral Economics," Journal of the New Economic Association, New Economic Association, vol. 34(2), pages 166-175.
    9. Paolo Guasoni & Gur Huberman & Dan Ren, 2020. "Shortfall aversion," Mathematical Finance, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(3), pages 869-920, July.
    10. Heydari, Pedram, 2024. "Regret, responsibility, and randomization: A theory of stochastic choice," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 217(C).
    11. Armantier, Olivier & Foncel, Jérôme & Treich, Nicolas, 2023. "Insurance and portfolio decisions: Two sides of the same coin?," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(3), pages 201-219.
    12. Daniel Krähmer & Rebecca Stone, 2013. "Anticipated regret as an explanation of uncertainty aversion," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 52(2), pages 709-728, March.
    13. van Bilsen, Servaas & Laeven, Roger J.A., 2020. "Dynamic consumption and portfolio choice under prospect theory," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 224-237.
    14. Keffert, Henk, 2024. "Robo-advising: Optimal investment with mismeasured and unstable risk preferences," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 315(1), pages 378-392.
    15. Santiago I. Sautua, 2016. "Risk, Ambiguity, And Diversification," Documentos de Trabajo 14588, Universidad del Rosario.
    16. Khemka, Gaurav & Steffensen, Mogens & Warren, Geoffrey J., 2021. "How sub-optimal are age-based life-cycle investment products?," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).
    17. Schlee, Edward E. & Ali Khan, M., 2023. "Money-metrics in local welfare analysis: Pareto improvements and equity considerations," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    18. Karni, Edi & Maccheroni, Fabio & Marinacci, Massimo, 2015. "Ambiguity and Nonexpected Utility," Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications,, Elsevier.
    19. Georgia Perakis & Guillaume Roels, 2008. "Regret in the Newsvendor Model with Partial Information," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 56(1), pages 188-203, February.
    20. Jinyi Hu, 2023. "Linguistic Multiple-Attribute Decision Making Based on Regret Theory and Minimax-DEA," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-14, October.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2106.13059. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.